It’s a Crime.

Hate Crimes Charges Sought Against Homosexual Protestors reads the headline on the conservative CNSNews.com website. It seems that the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts is seeking state and federal hate crimes charges against gay protestors who "disturbed" Sunday's Mass at Boston's Cathedral of the Holy Cross to protest the Church's opposition to gay marriage. According to C.J. Doyle, executive director of the league:

"A number of them embraced one another, held hands, and at least two male homosexuals kissed each other. -- A number of parishioners had to get up and actually move because either their view of the sanctuary was being blocked or because they felt somehow threatened or menaced by these protestors."

One of the protestors, Mark Snyder of QueerToday.com, is quoted as saying he found it "hurtful and offensive that I'm being accused of a hate crime because I've been a victim of hate crimes before growing up" -- for example, being "verbally and physically harassed on a daily basis" at high school.

I don't want to be flippant about actual cases of gays, and gay kids, being physically threatened -- or worse. But the language of "hate crimes" has become so whiney and malleable that it's a wonder the other side hasn't caught on sooner to how it can be used to silence dissent.

Real crimes of violence and the threat of violence should be prosecuted. But when "hurtful speech" or obnoxious behavior that makes people feel bad is elevated to the level of "hate crimes," then it's not surprising that the right of gay activists to "act up" is also going to come under attack.

GOP at the Crossroads.

The New York Times catches up with the escalating battle within the Republican Party over the Bush administration's overtures toward gays, which has enraged religious rightists. Those of us who regularly read the gay press's attacks on the president for being anti-gay, and then visit "Christian" activist sites that castigate the president for being pro-gay, sometimes feel like we're living in an Alice-in-Wonderland world.

By the way, the Times article -- unless subsequently corrected online -- mistakenly has George Bush appointing James Hormel as ambassador to Romania. The openly gay Bush appointee is career-diplomat Michael Guest, who has been blasted by social conservatives for "flaunting" his relationship with his partner. Hormel, a gay liberal philanthropist and Democratic Party contributor, was Bill Clinton's recess appointment to be ambassador to Luxembourg -- a far less important post.

Fodder for Conspiracy Buffs?

Some good news for gay Republicans:

The Republican Unity Coalition, a gay-straight alliance working to make sexual orientation a "non-issue" in the GOP, announced that financier David Rockefeller is joining the group's advisory board, on which former president Gerald Ford also serves, as reported in this Washington Post item (scroll down). Rockefeller, by the way, is a founder of The Trilateral Commission, which both far right and far left "wingnuts" accuse of trying to foster a shadow world government. Well, as long as it's a gay-inclusive conspiracy, count me in!

The Face of Hate.

Eric Robert Rudolph, charged with bombing the 1996 Olympics Park, abortion clinics, and a gay nighclub, has finally been caught. The sad part is that at least some residents of the North Carolina hills were apparently helping him evade capture, reports the New York Times, believing that he was doing the Lord's work. Sorry, folks, but Jesus actually wasn't a terrorist.

The Next Pope?

Speaking of those who take bigotry as their gospel, looks as if a likely candidate to become the next pope is virulently anti-gay. He's
Cardinal Francis Arinze, a Nigerian prelate who presides over the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue at the Vatican. At Georegtown University's commencement, he told the grads that the family is "mocked by homosexuality." Prejudice, alas, comes in all colors.
--Stephen H. Miller

Recent Postings

05/25/03 - 05/31/03

A Totalitarian Agenda Exposed.

Big-tent conservative activist David Horowitz responds to his critics, who accused him of attacking Christians when he criticized the religious right's demand that the GOP condemn homosexuality as immoral and support its criminalization. Writes Horowitz:

Would [anti-gay activist] Robert Knight like the government to investigate every American to determine whether they are homosexual or not and then compel those who are to undergo conversion therapy - or else? This is a prescription for a totalitarian state. No conservative should want any part of it. But this is how Robert Knight sums up the political agenda of social conservatives. Those who agree with him should think again.

Horowitz also scores when he objects to:

the systematic confusion of ethnic, gender, or sexual groups with leftwing political agendas. All blacks are not leftists; all women are not leftists; and all homosexuals are not leftists. To condemn them as such is both intolerant and politically stupid. ...

As a veteran of leftist revolutions, I know the difference between a leftist gay activist and a Log Cabin Republican, and so should Robert Knight. It is not a fiction that homosexuals -- as politically active citizens -- can help Republicans win elections. It is a fact.

After all, he observes, "a higher percentage of homosexuals voted Republican than did blacks, Jews or Hispanics."

Another View of Foley.

Miami Herald columnist Jim DeFede is more critical of Rep. Mark Foley for refusing to discuss his private life -- or, more to the point, the way in which he framed his refusal to discuss his private life -- than was the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund (see yesterday's item).
--Stephen H. Miller

Gay-Friendly “Hipublicans.”

An article in this week's New York Times Magazine called "The Young Hipublicans," by John Colapinto, looks at young college conservatives -- and finds that unlike earlier generations they're pretty cool when it comes to gays. An excerpt:

But the difference between the college conservatives of 20 years ago and today goes deeper than dress. Many members of the Bucknell conservatives club, for instance, endorse same-sex unions. Corey Langer recently wrote a Counterweight article supporting gay marriages. This is a far cry from -- when gay males were termed ''sodomites'' in The Dartmouth Review.

In part, the Bucknellians' openness to gays and lesbians can be attributed to the strong streak of libertarianism that runs through the club -- a conviction that the government should stay out of any and all aspects of life, including the bedroom. But you can't hang out long with the Bucknell Conservatives and not form the opinion that their tolerance on issues like homosexuality goes beyond libertarianism.

Like the rest of their generation, they've been trained, from preschool onward, in the tenets of cooperation, politeness and racial and gender sensitivity. As much as they would hate to admit it -- as hard as they try to fight it -- these quintessential values have suffused their consciousness and tempered their messages. "

Though they don't necessarily think of themselves as Republican, the stance they take on individual issues -- taxes, abortion, affirmative action -- gives them a conservative identity. And being a conservative can be cool and, as Mitchell puts it, not ''just something that wacko people in Alabama do.

Those in the conservative/libertarian camp are taking on the reactionary bigotry of their forebears, so in the not too distant future both the mainstream right and left will offer welcoming alternatives to gay people, as the preachers of prejudice find themselves increasingly marginalized.

Public or Private?

Responding to published accounts "outing" Rep. Mark Foley (R-Florida), who is running for the U.S. Senate, the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund -- which works to elect openly gay candidates -- issued this statement. Says Victory Fund Executive Director Chuck Wolfe:

We believe that openly gay and lesbian public servants are part of a healthy democracy and a representative government. -- At the same time, we believe that all Americans have a fundamental right to privacy, and therefore, a right to choose not to discuss their personal lives. --

It is reported that Congressman Foley, in his conversation today with select reporters, asserted his choice not to discuss his private life, which we respect. At those junctures where Congressman Foley does reference either his personal life or homosexuality, we call on him to be factual and truthful, so as to respect the decision of millions of gay Americans to live open, honest lives.

We also call on Congressman Foley, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and the Republican Party under his leadership to make no statements that suggest that openly gay Americans are unfit for public service or incapable of embracing conservative principles, if they so choose. We believe that voters will choose their elected representatives based on the issues, not speculation.

That seems like a reasoned -- and reasonable -- response. As much as I'd like more gay Republicans to come out, the bar should be set high when it comes to claiming a "right" to label anyone's sexuality against their wishes.

Recent Postings

05/18/03 - 05/24/03

The Rate of Gay Progress

First published May 28, 2003, in the Chicago Free Press.

There is no doubt that Americans are becoming more tolerant of, accepting of and/or comfortable with gays and lesbians. Virtually every public opinion survey shows small increases in support for gay equality over previous surveys.

The reasons seem not far to seek: the increasing visibility of gays in the mass media, popular culture and news stories; the increasing number of gay people coming out to family and friends; the presence of more open gays in the workplace, church, and neighborhood. More people are meeting gays personally, unlearning earlier impressions that gays are strange or threatening.

But is there a way to get a handle on how fast this change in attitudes toward gays is happening? Perhaps so.

The Gallup News Service recently released results of the gay-related questions in Gallup's 2003 Values and Beliefs survey and included some interesting comparative data from previous years.

The survey found that in 2003, 60 percent of voting age Americans think homosexuality should be legal. Back in 1977, when the question was first asked, the survey found that only 43 percent thought homosexuality should be legal. This is a 17 point change in 26 years.

The next question it asked was whether homosexuals should have "equal rights in terms of job opportunities." In 1977, 56 percent said they thought so, but now in 2003, 88 percent say they think so, a 32 point change over 26 years.

Clearly the rate of attitude shifts on gay issues depends on which issue. Gallup analysts suggest that change on the legality of gay sex is slower than that of employment discrimination because the legality issue taps into people's sense of public morality while the employment issue draws on people's attitudes about discrimination and fair play.

So perhaps the most significant question in the survey was the one that asked simply if homosexuality "should be considered an acceptable alternative lifestyle." More than the others, this question gets close to the root of public attitudes about our lives and loves and people's respect for our sense of who we are as people.

In 1982, when this question was first asked, barely 34 said yes, homosexuality is a legitimate lifestyle. Now, in 2003, 54 percent - more than half - say it should be considered legitimate. This is a 20 point rise in 21 years, about a percentage point each year.

That is what I think the average rate of gay progress has tended to be. You could even get roughly the same result if you averaged the 17 point change on the legality issue and the 32 point change on employment discrimination to get an average change of 24 or 25 points over 26 years.

To provide a double check, similar longitudinal data are available from the annual survey of 250,000 college freshmen conducted by the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA. In 1977, the survey found that 47 percent of freshmen thought it was important to have "laws against homosexual relationships." By 2002, only 25 percent agreed, a 22 point decline over 26 years, or not quite 1 point a year.

And on a question about civil marriage for gays, when the question was first asked in 1997, only 51 percent of the freshmen approved, but by 2002, 59 percent approved of it, an eight point increase in only five years.

Does all this mean that Americans as individuals are changing their minds about gay people and gay issues. No doubt some do: parents who discover they have a gay child, people who find a valued co-worker is gay, people who move into friendship circles where there are open gays.

But a larger part of the change probably stems from the plain fact that older people who grew up in more intolerant times and invariably hold the most negative attitudes about gays die and are replaced in the population by younger people who lack anti-gay attitudes because for them a visible gay presence in their lives and among their friends is an everyday matter.

Keep in mind, for instance, that while 60 percent of the adult population thinks homosexuality should not be illegal, 75 percent of the college freshmen agree. If the youngest age group is 15 points more gay supportive than the average, then the oldest age cohort is at least 15 points more anti-gay than the average, a 30 point divergence.

To be sure, college freshmen are more liberal on gay issues than non-college 18 years olds, but follow up surveys have shown that students become even more gay accepting throughout their college years and the age difference shows up in other surveys too, so the general point holds.

As young people grow older, the gay attitudes of each age group comes to resemble those of the one below it from a decade earlier, and because of the increased visibility of gays, people in the youngest age group keep becoming more gay accepting than the people previously in that age group.

The encouraging news here is that while the rate of change is no doubt variable in the short term, it seems fairly constant in the long term, and there seems little the religious right can do to slow or stop it.

Foley’s Two-Step.

What's fascinating and disturbing about Florida GOP congressman (and senate hopeful) Mark Foley's attempt to avoid discussing "topic G" is the way that, at least for now, anti-gay colleagues like Tom Delay are backing him up. Memo to Mark: Something's got to give, one way or the other -- it's 2003, not 1953 (or even 1993)!

At Least Someone's Having a Good Time.

Popular blogger Eugene Volokh, who teaches at UCLA Law School and clerked for Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, presents some interesting findings on what he terms "the myth of the median hyper-promiscuous gay male." Volokh writes:

the claim that the median American gay male (not just a minority of gays) is hyper-promiscuous (not just a bit more promiscuous than heterosexuals) appears to be false -- and politically quite important. --

" claims that, say, the median gay man has over 250 sexual partners in a lifetime makes gays seem in a way freakish and deviant, and makes it much harder for people to see gay sexual relationships as emotionally comparable to straight sexual relationships. --

All the data I've seen supporting the hyper-promiscuous median gay male claim has been junk science. It often refers to real studies -- but to studies of groups that we have no reason to think are representative of the median gay male.

In other words, a small minority of the gay male minority is skewing the results for the rest of us -- quell surprise!

Conservatives vs. Religious Right,
Round 2.

Ramesh Ponnuru, a senior editor at the conservative National Review, had this to say at National Review Online about threats being made by religious right leaders that their minions might bolt the GOP if President Bush doesn't toe their anti-gay line:

Social-conservative leaders have the bad habits of not setting priorities and of threatening more than they can deliver. The average social conservative likes President Bush. -- If the administration continues its current course -- and does not nominate a squish to the Supreme Court -- are social conservatives really going to stay home because Marc Racicot [head of the Republican National Committee] met with gay groups and the president didn't support Rick Santorum more forcefully?

To which Ken Connor, the head of the Family Research Council, replied. And to which Ponnuru then replied back (scroll down past the tax-cut story).
--Stephen H. Miller

Conservatives and the Religious Right.

There's an important new piece by influential conservative David Horowitz on his frontpagemagazine.com website. Titled Pride Before a Fall, Horowitz takes to task the homophobia of the religious right, finding it both intolerant and divisive. He writes:

In four Gospels - including the Sermon on the Mount - Jesus neglected to mention the subject of homosexuality. But that hasn't stopped a handful of self-appointed leaders of the so-called Religious Right from deciding that it is an issue worth the presidency of the United States. In what the Washington Times described as a "stormy session" last week, the Rev. Lou Sheldon, Paul Weyrich, Gary Bauer and eight other "social conservatives" read the riot act to RNC chairman Marc Racicot for meeting with the "Human Rights Campaign," a group promoting legal protections for homosexuals. This indiscretion, they said, "could put Bush's entire re-election campaign in jeopardy."

According to the Times" report by Ralph Hallow, the RNC chairman defended himself by saying, "You people don't want me to meet with other folks, but I meet with anybody and everybody." To this Gary Bauer retorted, "That can't be true because you surely would not meet with the leaders of the Ku Klux Klan."

Nice analogy Gary. Way to love thy neighbor.

There are a growing number of important conservative figures who are not happy with the religious right's anti-gay antics, especially their threats against the Bush administration over its outreach toward gays. Increasingly, the religious right is being marginalized by mainstream conservatives who know that the future is an inclusive one, based on the core values of indivdiual liberty and responsiblity, as opposed to the left's bureaucratic collectivism and the religious right's bigotry (and big-goverment support for bedroom police enforcing sodomy laws). This is a very good sign.
--Stephen H. Miller

Recent Postings

05/11/03 - 05/17/03

Winning the ‘Culture Wars.’

Here's the Christian right's view of the 2004 presidential election, via their worldnetdaily website, which laments:

The 2004 election mantra for politicos may well be "It's homosexuality, stupid," as Democratic candidates openly court the "gay" vote, and Republicans make quiet incursions into the traditionally Democratic territory -- all to the distress of conservative, pro-family groups.

One suspects their distress will only grow more acute over time, as a new Gallup poll suggests that supporting gay equality is no longer a losing issue. Among the findings:

"almost 9 out of 10 Americans agree that homosexuals should have equal rights in terms of job opportunities, although opinions on allowing homosexual couples to legally form civil unions, giving them some of the legal rights of married couples, are evenly divided."

Taking the 'Culture War' Home.

Tammy Bruce, an openly lesbian critic of politically correct feminism, has a column on the conservative (but NOT religious right) frontpagemagazine.com site explaining why supporters of limited government should oppose sodomy laws.

Making this argument to mainstream conservatives on their own terms is far more productive than the usual gay protests, which too often seem to consists of little more than chanting "bigot, bigot go away" in the gay left's echo chamber. A similar point is made by Carl Schmid, a former head of DC's Log Cabin chapter, who writes in the Washington Blade:

America is still being educated about gays, and the battle over our equal rights and responsibilities is basically being fought in the Republican Party. This makes sense since the more conservative voters are in the Republican Party.

Given where the remaining minds that need to be convinced are, isn't it incumbent upon all gay and lesbian advocacy organizations, both at the national and local level, to focus more of their attention on conservative-leaning voters and their elected officials?

Since the White House and Congress are controlled by Republicans, and likely will be in at least the near future, there is even more of a reason for the gay rights movement to change its course of action and focus more on Republican voters and officials.

That means our advocacy groups need more Republican voices, both gay and straight; they need more Republican leaders within their ranks; they need to make Republicans feel welcome into their organizations; they need to speak the language and style of Republicans; they need to spend less time in the offices of their friends and more with Republican elected officials, Republican voters in swing districts and conservative media outlets; and they need to learn to criticize in a constructive manner and praise when appropriate.

Well said! The Blade, by the way, also deserves credit this week for covering the attacks by religious rightists on the Bush administration over its outreach to gays -- an invisible story in most of the media. The report is titled Racicot's HRC meeting outrages "pro-family" groups.
--Stephen H. Miller

Fundies Fuming.

The religious rightists have caught on to the meeting last week between administration officials and Log Cabin Republicans, and they're hopping mad. Here's a posting from the anti-gay Family Research Council's website:

Despite repeated assurances, both public and private, that the party has no intention of abandoning its commitment to the sanctity of marriage and the family, the White House and the GOP continue to court radical homosexual groups that agitate for policies that would destroy both of these indispensable social institutions. ... This incessant pandering to the homosexual lobby is deeply troubling.

Again, it's amazing that the gay and mainstream media are ignoring the fulminations of the religious right over the administration's tepid outreach efforts.
--Stephen H. Miller

More on Deroy.

It's interesting that Deroy Murdock's column criticizing sodomy laws, which I first referred to on May 11 (below), has now been printed in the Sunday New York Post and today on National Review Online. That's really taking the argument to the conservatives!
--Stephen H. Miller